create_scatter_chart

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose output behavior (base64 image or file path) and bubble support, but says nothing about disk-saving side effects, data prerequisites, or what 'bubble' requires. Partial transparency, so a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences front-load the core action and result without wasted words. Ideal length for a simple chart-creation tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits usage context, the relationship between save_to_disk/format and the promised return value, and how to enable bubble sizing. The schema partially fills gaps, but the overall package is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It doesn't explain that bubble size is controlled via marker.size, how format relates to return type, or what data must look like beyond what the schema already shows. The description therefore fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb (Создаёт/creates) and resource (scatter chart), and explicitly notes bubble chart support, which differentiates it from sibling line/bar/pie chart tools. It also gives the return type, making the tool's core function unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. Usage with respect to sibling tools is only implied by the tool name and the generic chart-type wording, so an agent gets no help choosing between scatter and line or bar charts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.